Posts by InternationalObserver
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Just like in films all messaging applications work fullscreen with REALLY BIG TEXT. And mobiles don't exist due to their ability to destroy many plot setups
You'd think that after a hundred years of cinema people would have realised by now that it's actually safer to give the hero all the information they need "to bust this conspiracy wide open" over the phone.
But no, it's never safe to talk over the phone -- someone might be listening so instead you arrange to meet the hero somewhere secret but dark.
But because you arranged this rendezvous over the phone you'll always be dead before the hero arrives... -
<spooky!>
I typed that in, previewed it, and then thought the better of it.
I think I shall just have to start my own site where I can say whatever I like with impunity....
(but if we're both thinking it then it must be true, right?)
-
Cue Mac vs PC argument...
oh god no PLEASE NOOOOOOOO!!!!!
-
blatant advertorial
surely that's oxymoronic? If it's blatant then no-one is fooled?
-
FYI - I hit 'post' instead of 'preview'. I would've removed What business do you run Ben? since it reads like too much of a personal attack on someone I don't even know.
BTW - as a consumer/viewer I'm all in favour of less TV ads. I bought a HDD recorder (like MySky for ppl who don't have Sky) specifically for the purposes of skipping thru ads. Marvellous!
-
According to Impey that is exactly what they did do, they went and talked to Maharey, who told them No, ( they also raised that TVNZ got an exemption for the 1999 WRC, still no dice)
Wow, then that's a clearcut case of favouring TVNZ surely? I'm surprised he's that stupid.
Like I give a rat's arse about broadcaster's profits. Getting exclusive coverage of the World Cup is likely to be well profitable enough
What business do you run Ben? How can TV3 make the RWC profitable if they can't run ads while the games are on? RWC charge huge fees for the rights - would you rather ads were run or the Taxpayer paid for the broadcast rights?
Pass a law that requires the amount of TV advertising to be halved but requires advertising rates to double. Broadcasters get the same money, but have more space to fill.
heh heh heh. If only selling ads were that simple. Do you know why there are only 5 frankfurters in delipack, instead of the 6 there used to be? It's because Verkers decided instead of putting the price up they would reduce the number of franks in order to keep the price to what consumers can afford. Advertisers don't spend whatever it costs, they spend what they can afford. And if they can't afford enough ads to get the frequency/reach they require then they don't waste their money on a half assed TV campaign.
I remember Sunday evening viewing in the '80s was mostly very bleak
You mean: too many Dunedin bands on Radio With Pictures??
-
No ads - but still promos. They can tell you to watch the movie on TV tonight, etc, just can't tell you to buy McDonalds.
But they can tell you to watch The Sunday Nite McDonalds Mega-Movie complete with logo ...
-
Is anyone else a little uneasy that only women are victims of domestic violence under the hospital questions?
What rankled with me was the timing. This initiative only becomes public when the nation is incensed about another case of child abuse. So the implication is that this initiative is part of the 'toolbox' (oh, how I hate that word) to stem child abuse? So the implication is that child abuse is a male problem, and we must ask women who turn up to Hospital if they have been abused or intimidated because that might indicate their children have been abused too? So the implication is that women only abuse their children because they themselves have been abused by their male partner?
Some will argue that I'm implying too much, but I don't think so. On a lighter note, I pity the poor nurses who will have to hear for the hundreth time:__ "Did I ever have to do something sexual I didn't want to? Only every bloody birthday he's had since we got married! __
[GA edit] -
I'm surprised Impey got so fiesty about this. I would have thought 'quiet diplomacy' would have worked better, enabling the Govt to quietly give TV3 an exemption for the RWC without pissing off the Christians. The Govt/nation afterall are keen on 'our national game' being seen free-to-air, so it wouldn't have been a problem. (Can you imagine the Govt saying no? They would have left themselves wide open to the charge of pandering to TVNZ by forcing TV3 to air the matches commercial free)
But instead Impey has made a big noise about it. I'm guessing he's not looking for an exemption for just the RWC ...
-
BTW - I thought Claire Chitham was/is a great actress too.
I can't recall a TV death that made me this sad since... uh... maybe Adrianna on Sopranos.
WTF?! Adrianna's dead?
Some of us had recorded it for later viewing!!!!~
heh heh heh